One day after a Los Angeles jury convicted his client of giving pop superstar Michael Jackson a lethal dose of anesthetic, Houston defense lawyer Edward Chernoff reflected Tuesday on what went wrong in one of the most sensational, media-charged celebrity cases in recent history.

"The biggest challenge was that they wanted and needed a conviction," Chernoff said, identifying the "they" as "the majority of individuals in Jackson's life."

On Monday, the seven-man, five-woman jury found Dr. Conrad Murray, a cardiologist whose work included a Houston practice, guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Jackson's death. In less than two days, jurors sifted through 22 days of testimony from almost 50 witnesses.

Murray, 58, faces up to four years in prison.

"Let me put it this way," Chernoff said. "We're going to try to convince the judge that probation is the appropriate sentence."

Pledging to appeal, Chernoff said Monday's verdict devastated the physician.

"He never contemplated being convicted," the lawyer said.

Jackson, 50, died in June 2009 after being administered a potent anesthetic, propofol, the so-called "milk of amnesia," as a sleeping aid. Murray had been retained as the musician's private physician at a salary of $150,000 a month.

"There's not another case like this," Chernoff said in describing the media frenzy surrounding the trial. "When I went to get the verdict, there were hundreds of people yelling and screaming. There were helicopters overhead. There were gasps and screams in the courtroom. … My paramount concern was that the whole trial had the feel of a television show rather than a trial, and I think that's a shame."

Caught up in a frenzy

Heightening the frenzy, he said, was the Los Angeles location. Chernoff said he considered seeking a change of venue but was stumped for alternatives.

"This was not a situation like a murder only Houston, Texas, cares about," he said. "Where do you go? In theory, we may have had a better shot in northern California, but you don't get to choose where you go."

Chernoff said he unsuccessfully attempted to have jurors sequestered and television cameras barred from the courtroom.

"We spent a long time to get a jury that hadn't developed an opinion based on publicity, and with a lot of the jurors that we ultimately had to agree on, we couldn't be sure that they essentially weren't being influenced in that regard," Chernoff said. "We never knew what was going on outside with the jurors and possibly never will know."

Chernoff noted that jurors reported to the court that they had been contacted by media. Not being sequestered arguably left jurors vulnerable to outside influences, he said.

"Why put jurors in that situation?," Chernoff said. "Think of the pressure. How would they come back and say 'not guilty?'"

Jurors, he said, had a "hard, hard job. and they did an admirable job."

Uphill battle

In Houston, South Texas College of Law professor Geoffrey Corn monitored the trial, concluding that successfully defending Murray was an uphill battle.

"The standard against which he was held accountable - gross negligence - was not terribly hard to satisfy," he said. "What was presented in the case, allowing a patient to be on that type of medication in that environment, was not a standard of care most physicians would follow."

Chernoff did a "fine job" in his summation, Corn said. Prosecutors, he said, were "reasonable in the way they approached the case, and I think the jury recognized that."

Corn acknowledged that the trial unfolded under intense media scrutiny, but "any time you have a high-profile case you will have high-level publicity and a lot of emotions."

"I believe juries, once they are in the deliberation room, set that aside and view the case through a different lens," Corn said.

"If we don't believe that, then the foundation of our entire system crumbles."